If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Sexism and the TTLG

Moderator Note
The original thread is something that has obviously been passionately discussed but has diverged from it's original context within General Gaming. Rather than simply close the thread the latest discussion has been moved here although I'd again ask that insults, empty posts and other attacks are avoided otherwise it will be closed for good.

Thanks, Al

Originally Posted by heywood

Sexism is not a one-way street.

This is, I think, the main reason for all the fuss: the massive majority of feminists I have known pretend that only men can be sexist, which is a lie. Feminism, as commonly practiced, regardless of actual theory, is itself highly sexist; I've found feminists (both male and female) to be, almost without exception, people who nod approvingly to any female-on-male sexism but scream with rage at any male-on-female sexism, and who seek equal treatment in any particular aspect only when it would result in beneficial treatment instead of detrimental. (E.g. demanding equality in wages but not in barroom brawls; "you don't hit women!" like you hit men*, but you sure jolly well better pay them the same at the company.)

So, while I have something of an issue with the theory itself (more on that later), I think an even worse problem is the one-sidedness and hypocrisy of those who claim to follow it. It's much like the issue of "race": it's supposed to be okay for a minority person to engage in racism against a majority person, but not the other way around. W.T.F.

The theory itself of feminism I also find problematic. If we agree that the theory of feminism is that men and women are exactly equal and should be treated exactly as equals, then we run into a problem: what does "equal" mean? Equal is a judgement value, outside of mathematically quantifiable things. I think everyone is aware that men and women are not the same, and so treating them exactly the same may not be viable (e.g. unisex locker rooms et al.). Certainly, I don't see any feminists asking to be treated altogether exactly the same as men (and if they do, I almost can guarantee that they don't really mean it).

So what exactly does equal mean, since not the same? This opens up a large debate about what exactly constitutes equal treatment, a debate which has no absolute and clear answer. And so the war goes on. Those who point out, as I have endeavored to do so here, some of the problems with practiced feminism are usually labelled by said feminists as regressive bigots, but while a large number of those who oppose feminism are, no doubt, regressive bigots, at least a significant number of those who question it are, in fact, only looking for fair and equal treatment for both sexes. I oppose the Orwellian "all sexes are equal, but some sexes are more equal than others" which feminists generally practice.

* I don't feel that men should be subject to assault in pubs, nor do I feel that women should be. Just pointing out the double-standard which I've found most people have.

I've been avoiding this thread because it's a horrible wreck that should be locked up tight and buried under Yucca Mountain but god dammit.

Equal pay for equal work, no glass ceiling, the right to do with one's body as one wishes, not being blamed for being raped, etc. -- how are these at all controversial?

You say you don't see any feminists asking for equality and the theoretical ones that do don't mean it. I say you don't see any feminists at all, and this is all conjecture, leaping at shadows that aren't there. You say the "massive majority" of feminists you know -- and that's hyperbole if I've ever seen it -- have been the kind who don't want equality so much as to bury men in the foundation of a women's shelter. How many of these people have you actually met? Three? You need to realize that with any school of thought -- political, social, whathaveyou -- there are going to be people who don't fully understand what they're talking about and so just repeat the loudest talking points as if that makes them experts. The libertarian movement is filled with these people.

If you've even read my posts in this thread (doubtful, since most people are are just looking for an echo chamber and skip the posts they might disagree with) you'd know that while the "radfem" subset of feminism does exist, it's a very small minority that is doing nothing to stop opponents -- for example conservative males, especially if running for office -- from using them as a scapegoat to vilify all of feminism. That you've bought into the "all feminists are radicals who want to subjugate men for breeding and meat" line -- how fucking gullible are you?

Here, since you missed it, here's an important fact about why behaviour of men towards women has more focus in feminism:

MEN ARE IN POWER, WOMEN AREN'T.

This isn't fucking rocket science. Hell, it's been explained in this very thread. Like the song says, it's a man's world. Our society is systematically designed to keep down anyone who isn't in the majority, in this case women but also ethnic and religious minorities. Hate a man, you hate alone, hate a woman and the world hates with you. And it's not some mysterious Deus Exian cabal of frat boys and pre-teen XBL members behind it, but plain, simple, cyclic ignorance and mean-spiritedness handed down to the next generation. The majority of men don't realize they're perpetuating it and have been taught to perpetuate it through their upbringing and the culture and media around them; many of them wouldn't care anyway because why should they? It's not their problem, or so they think. But we're going back into material I've already covered that you'd know already if your head wasn't too far up your self-righteous ass to actually read my damn posts.

Oh god, the equality gambit, the monolithic feminism gambit, the everything ostensibly pro-women is feminism gambit/ the straw feminism gambit.
That's got to be bingo by now. Honorarily at least.

I do not have time for this. At least, if you're going to talk yourself in a circle about not understanding feminism in the first place, would it kill you to do some reading first? I know that's not much help.
And seriously; equality in bar fights? If you agree people shouldn't be punching each other in the face why are you even talking about it? People always say this stuff: feminism is out to change the social order therefore everything is up for grabs! Throw out the rulebook and any moral or legal implications of beating on someone not as strong as you, obviously.
It doesn't make any sense logically, reasonably or legally, to even have that discussion.
I don't know who's more influential in this, Rush Limbaugh or the Church of Satan.

It is true however that you will have almost as many forms of feminism as people preaching it, along with the same amount of definitions of 'equality'.

It's silly because you only need one universal moral principle to address racism and sexism, something like:
1. People should be empowered by society and its systems regardless of sex and origins.
2. People who consciously do not apply 1. should be punished equally.

There's been a funny debate in France during the last days. Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, newly appointed minister of women's rights said last week that she wanted to abolish prostitution ("abolish", seriously?) instead of pursuing the current --perfectible in its application-- policy of tracking down pimps and organized networks. Most feminist organizations praised blindly her decision. Their reaction, however, wasn't absolutely unanimous: a few other organizations, along with a very large number of independant prostitutes were dismayed by it.

This is a case where I do not understand the larger part of the feminists' reaction: now, organized prostitution is nothing less than modern slavery and should be fought vehemently, I think everyone can agree about that. Girls are taken from their countries, south or east with the promise of making enough money someday to be able to live on their own. They are thrown into the jungle of cheap sexual acts and pimp violence, which is absolutely disgusting and degrading for women.
However, many prostitutes and escorts, women and men, are independant, chose their way of life and are willing to take it to the streets to defend it, sometimes more vocally than many unionists. Those are going to lose their jobs and why? Because an idiot wants to declare moral war on prostitution? I can't understand the feminist logic between supporting the (illusory) eradication of prositution and removing freedom from women (and men) to monetize sexual intercourse. And that's exactly what some of these other, minority feminist groups said: fight slavery, not lifestyle choices.

This was nothing more than an aside, but it demonstrates nicely that there is no "one and unique" feminism out here and that Sg3 isn't wrong when he says that we still need today to define properly what it means to be equal.

I couldn't agree more with the last two posts (Dethtoll and BH in case anyone gets in before this posts).
It's not about men and women being equal - that straw man seems to constantly get dragged out in these types of debate, but equality of opportunity for all.

when people on the whole discuss things en masse, altered consensus in response to changed attitudes can end up generating a new status quo.

You mean like talking about politics has now created a new consensus and a new status quo?

Talking will never bring any consensus or any status quo about the place of women in society. This is a debate which is going on since societies exists and things keep changing. The image of women in video game is obviously a new subject, but in the end it's the same old debate, which will never end.

Originally Posted by dethtoll

Equal pay for equal work

The idea of equal pay for equal work is great in theory, but in practice it's one of the worst argument someone who fights for social equality can make. When a woman will take a one year paid maternity leave, men will see that women have privileges they don't. When a woman refuse to do overtime because she says she has to take care of her household, or when she'll demand to leave early because one of her kid is sick, and when because of that the enterprise ask for a men to do the job, men will see that women don't have to do as much as men. When a woman will ask for the help of a man because she don't have the physical strentght to do a particular task, men will see that women can't do equal work.

Fighting for social justice is great, but you must choose your arguments carefully or you will get the opposite result of what you seek.

Anyway, saying that "men are in power, women aren't" is simplistic and borderline idiotic. It is not a man's world, it is a world for the ones who are aggressive and who won't hesitate to fight for power. It happens that it's a characteristic which is more common in men.

When a woman will take a one year paid maternity leave, men will see that women have privileges they don't.

You don't have kids do you? Or know anyone who have had some? I have and know plenty of other new parents (most of my workmates are at that family starting age) and I can tell you that all of the Dads are fucking ecstatic that they get to go to work rather than look after the baby. Not that it matters anyway because in most countries a man can opt to take paid maternity too (I actually took 2 months of our allotted paternity leave with our last child because my wife got serious post-natal depression) but generally don't for various reasons, not one of which is 'the wife calling dibs on this sweet, sweet deal of getting no sleep for 9 months and losing 12 months of career progression'.

When a woman refuse to do overtime because she says she has to take care of her household, or when she'll demand to leave early because one of her kid is sick, and when because of that the enterprise ask for a men to do the job, men will see that women don't have to do as much as men.

I, and all the other Dads at my workplace whose wives are also working, do all of these things too and our workmates without kids certainly do not feel like we are advantaged in any way. On the contrary I think they're pretty stoked they don't have to worry about that shit. It's also interesting to note that the reason that Dads have more freedom to do these things now days is due to feminism - it's no longer always seen as 'womans work' and therefore 'below' men to do.

It is not a man's world, it is a world for the ones who are aggressive and who won't hesitate to fight for power. It happens that it's a characteristic which is more common in men.

So what you're saying is that the world has been shaped to value and reward male characteristics? Almost like it's a man's world?

Talking will never bring any consensus or any status quo about the place of women in society. This is a debate which is going on since societies exists and things keep changing. The image of women in video game is obviously a new subject, but in the end it's the same old debate, which will never end.

It will never end, but it may evolve. Personally I would love to see some more mature depictations of the fairer sex in video games because it would result in more mature productions.

Tbh, everyone should discard the notion of equality, because modern feminism doesn't advocate it aside from fringe groups. Modern (academic) feminism work to prevent and lessen discrimination. I also find it funny how Papy seems to discard all the progress in human rights with his "talking is bullshit" argument.

And seriously; equality in bar fights? If you agree people shouldn't be punching each other in the face why are you even talking about it?

It is a silly example, but there's truth in it: most people (and I mean most people) will object more to a woman being punched in the face than to a man being punched in the face, if everything other than the punchee's sex is equal in the situation. This attitude causes much injustice.

What is this 'all else being equal' you speak of? They've both had their punching power tested beforehand perhaps?
It causes about as much injustice as the idea larger males shouldn't hit a child. Yeah, I know where it comes from. It's still little more than a general rule of thumb (or hand, I suppose).

Law of averages. If you a hit a guy, that guy is generally capable of fighting back with a winning chance. While smaller size can be a case for either genders, I've seen some guys who look small but are tough as hell in actual fight. Guys are also more apt to respond in kind to being in hit than women are.

It may be an "injustice", but its one that results from physical and hardwired pscyhological differences between the sexes.

You mean like talking about politics has now created a new consensus and a new status quo?

Learn the difference between the words "can" and "does".

Talking will never bring any consensus or any status quo about the place of women in society. This is a debate which is going on since societies exists and things keep changing. The image of women in video game is obviously a new subject, but in the end it's the same old debate, which will never end.

This debate has actually done huge amounts for women over the centuries. Don't forget that women didn't used to be able to vote. It was a shift in attitude brought about by a change in social culture which led to something being done about.

The idea of equal pay for equal work is great in theory, but in practice it's one of the worst argument someone who fights for social equality can make. When a woman will take a one year paid maternity leave, men will see that women have privileges they don't.

When men have to carry a child to term in their wombs and then breastfeed that child through its infancy, they'll have a point.

When a woman refuse to do overtime because she says she has to take care of her household

Sexism, implying that women don't do overtime and men can't look after households.

or when she'll demand to leave early because one of her kid is sick

Dad can't do this 50% of the time why? Again, implying that you see this as a woman's role.

and when because of that the enterprise ask for a men to do the job, men will see that women don't have to do as much as men.

So in summary, women shouldn't have equal pay rights because they are doing house work, looking after sick children and they should be grateful to not have to do as much work as men and therefore get less pay? You don't see how this idea of man= breadwinner, woman = get a nice little part time job and look after the house and kids is a tad sexist? Most parents I know try to split the sick duty 50/50 and the housework too, on account of it being a bit backwards to assume the man has the more important job. Or maybe he does, perhaps because of woman being expected to look after the house and kids, leading to them not getting jobs as important as their husband, leading to them being expected to focus on the home....it's a positive feedback loop and fuelled by an assumption that work = man stuff and keeping house = woman stuff. That is called inequality of opportunity.

When a woman will ask for the help of a man because she don't have the physical strentght to do a particular task, men will see that women can't do equal work.

This is one aspect where men have an advantage over women, but this is also probably why you don't get quite so many female applicants to be hod carriers etc.. or quite so many men applying to be wet nurses. The majority of jobs involving equal pay disputes tend not to be those which are divided by strength requirements, if you disagree, then please find me that article. A good area of pay inequality analysis is middle management. Salary inequality has come a long way in Europe, but only because people started pointing it out and saying that it was not ok and doing stuff about it.

Law of averages. If you a hit a guy, that guy is generally capable of fighting back with a winning chance. While smaller size can be a case for either genders, I've seen some guys who look small but are tough as hell in actual fight. Guys are also more apt to respond in kind to being in hit than women are.

It may be an "injustice", but its one that results from physical and hardwired pscyhological differences between the sexes.

Testosterone not only allows for more muscle growth, it also creates a more aggressive and violent phenotype. Bear in mind that women secrete testosterone too, just at far lower amounts and with far fewer target tissues. Not sure how this applies to equality of opportunities though. So men and women are not equal in a fight - so what? Doesn't mean anything to debate about equality of opportunities.

The criminal justice system tends to treat rape victims like criminals.

The system is even harder on male rape victims than it is on female rape victims. Did you know that? Not to make light of the horror that female rape victims go through with during and after the atrocity--but it's even worse for male rape victims, because very few people even take them seriously.

I myself have been, although not the victim of actual rape, the target of sexual harassment at the workplace (male on male, physical). For the same infraction against a female worker, a male worker was fired--but when this infraction was committed against a male worker (me), there was no punitive action taken against the perpetrator. All the company did was put the victim on a priority list for a transfer to another department.

And when we're talking about female-on-male rape, many people (especially women) don't even believe that it's possible. (Which it is.) Oh--and don't get me started on how statutory rape laws always assume that the male was the one to blame. What happens when an underage girl rapes an older man? The victim is punished, that's what! Gah. This is why I resent practicing feminists*--they are responsible for, and often even approve of, so much of the evil which they preach against--only against males instead of females. This disgusts me.

* "Practicing feminists" being defined for this use as "those whom I have observed practicing what they call feminism."

My ex girlfriend had a baby. Yes, I know it's a chore for most people, particularly for most men, but for me it was a joy, even if the baby was not mine. When after two years my girlfriend left me to go back to the father of the child, losing the kid was one of the most difficult experience I ever lived. Having said that, can you leave ad hominem arguments out of this?

Originally Posted by Angel Dust

I, and all the other Dads at my workplace whose wives are also working, do all of these things too and our workmates without kids certainly do not feel like we are advantaged in any way.

If you work at a place where single men can take a day off whenever they feel like spending a day skiing or golfing, then I understand why they don't feel like you have an advantage. Otherwise, no matter what they say to you, they most probably do and they most probably think they deserve a better salary than you because of your lack of commitment to your work.

Originally Posted by Angel Dust

It's also interesting to note that the reason that Dads have more freedom to do these things now days is due to feminism

I somewhat agree on that, but the sad truth is that few men I know like to take care of a household or of a kid who's sick. 20 years ago I was thinking this was just a problem with the older generation, but most young men I now know still don't want to do these things. We still live in a world where men do very little and still abuse women.

Originally Posted by Angel Dust

So what you're saying is that the world has been shaped to value and reward male characteristics? Almost like it's a man's world?

No, I'm saying our societies were the result of something similar to natural selection, not the result of intelligent design. There is no conspiracy against women. If women were more aggressive than men, then this would be a woman's world.

Originally Posted by faetal

Learn the difference between the words "can" and "does".

Oh, I know the difference, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't believe for a second that talking about sexism will make it disappear.

Originally Posted by faetal

This debate has actually done huge amounts for women over the centuries. Don't forget that women didn't used to be able to vote. It was a shift in attitude brought about by a change in social culture which led to something being done about.

Women right to vote were often an indirect consequence of World War I and World War II. Men went to war so women went to work (and since they were cheap labor, companies kept them). This was one of the main cause for the change of the social culture, not some kind of cultural enlightenment due to talking.

Originally Posted by faetal

When men have to carry a child to term in their wombs and then breastfeed that child through its infancy, they'll have a point.

I do have a point (actually it's not mine, but that's irrelevant) and you didn't answered it. Having a child is only a personal choice. It is not a part of the job duty, not even a requirement imposed by society and so it shouldn't give any privileges.

Originally Posted by faetal

Sexism, implying that women don't do overtime and men can't look after households.

Women not doing as much overtime as men is pretty much facts, not sexism. And men who doesn't look as much as women after their household is also pretty much facts.

Originally Posted by faetal

Dad can't do this 50% of the time why? Again, implying that you see this as a woman's role.

Me? Again, what I think is irrelevant. The discussion is not about me, it's about society. And again, it's not that dads can't do this, it's that dads choose not to do this.

Originally Posted by faetal

So in summary, women shouldn't have equal pay rights because they are doing house work, looking after sick children and they should be grateful to not have to do as much work as men and therefore get less pay?

The "should be grateful" is only an attempt to manipulation. It makes you look bad.

My point is that women have statistically less value for an enterprise because of the constraint their personal life impose upon them. It's not because of an assumption, it's not because of a positive feedback loop, it's simply because women choose this role.

Papy raises an invaluable point: women choose to have children. (Often against the wishes of the father.) It takes two to tango, but it is the women who are given the entirety of control over the consequences. The man alone is punished for the deed which both engaged in. This is yet another injustice which feminists enjoy.

I'm out. I never should have participated in this thread to begin with--it does no one any good, and all it's doing is making me angry. I loathe injustice and wrongness of any sort--unlike most people, who seem to only hate it when it harms them. Perhaps I am misjudging intention, but I've seen too much to trust in a basic goodness of people. Sg3 out.

Oh, I know the difference, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't believe for a second that talking about sexism will make it disappear.

What you believe is irrelevant. Sociology and group psychology have characterised clear mechanisms where changing attitudes cause cultural drift over time. You know you can't see plants grow when you watch them either, but that doesn't change the fact that they do. Cultural drift works similarly, only punctuated by events, such as controversies.

Women right to vote were often an indirect consequence of World War I and World War II. Men went to war so women went to work (and since they were cheap labor, companies kept them). This was one of the main cause for the change of the social culture, not some kind of cultural enlightenment due to talking.

What. The fuck. Women's suffrage was a movement which started in the late 19th century. SO you think that women magically gained the idea that they might be able to have a say in things when all the men went away and they got jobs!? You actually think people are that 2-dimensional?

I do have a point (actually it's not mine, but that's irrelevant) and you didn't answered it. Having a child is only a personal choice. It is not a part of the job duty, not even a requirement imposed by society and so it shouldn't give any privileges.

So, our species continues its existence because of choice? I think you'll find that the words "biological imperative" have a great deal of meaning. Penalising women for being the one's with the womb? That is sexism 101. Fulfilling our primary biological purpose, as programmed into all sexual reproducing species by evolution, is not a choice, like buying a new car or building an attic extension and women should not be treated as second class citizens for continuing the species. This actually astounds me.

Women not doing as much overtime as men is pretty much facts, not sexism.

Show me these facts. Show me that for each job type, there are more male overtime hours than female overtime hours. Also tell me why this affects how much women are paid per hour, which is on average less than men.

And men who doesn't look as much as women after their household is also pretty much facts.

Possibly due to the fact that many men still behave as though they are IN CHARGE. I'm saying that it isn't mandatory - men can fucking look after sick kids and clean a home too.

Me? Again, what I think is irrelevant. The discussion is not about me, it's about society. And again, it's not that dads can't do this, it's that dads choose not to do this.

Which would be why people claim women are not given equal opportunities to make more of themselves, held back by men assuming a position of superiority.

My point is that women have statistically less value for an enterprise because of the constraint their personal life impose upon them. It's not because of an assumption, it's not because of a positive feedback loop, it's simply because women choose this role.

Wow, you are a real throwback. The point is that if a woman decides not to choose this role, any attempt to limit her opportunities based on the idea that she'll do x, y or z is sexism. She should be given the same opportunity, pay, benefits and respect as a man. Basically labelling women off as only good for cooking, cleaning, fucking and raising children IS sexism. There should be no barriers if a woman wants to have a family and a career and any employer discriminating against a woman because of Jurassic arguments like those you have used, should be prosecuted and fined.

any employer discriminating against a woman because of Jurassic arguments like those you have used, should be prosecuted and fined.

My first point was that it's a bad idea to talk about sexism because the only thing it achieves is a polarization of ideas. You are now using the threat of a fine. If it doesn't change my mind, what will be your next threat?

Testosterone not only allows for more muscle growth, it also creates a more aggressive and violent phenotype. Bear in mind that women secrete testosterone too, just at far lower amounts and with far fewer target tissues. Not sure how this applies to equality of opportunities though. So men and women are not equal in a fight - so what? Doesn't mean anything to debate about equality of opportunities.

That's an accidental strawman. My post was in response to a comment on social norms, and I pointed out that some of these social norms arise from physiological differences from in the sexes rather than being oppressive.